ABF | Driver-facing Cameras

I'm having a problem with the concept that the cameras are illegal because they only focus on one person. The security cameras at banks and convenience stores all have cameras that are focused only on the person standing across the counter from the clerk.
 
I'm having a problem with the concept that the cameras are illegal because they only focus on one person. The security cameras at banks and convenience stores all have cameras that are focused only on the person standing across the counter from the clerk.
Really? There are cameras all over a store/banks. You can see more than just a person standing at the counter. When you watch a video of a robbery you only see the guy standing at the counter? That’s ridiculous. Plus you have a choice not to go to said convince store or bank. You get no choice other than quit your job so bull crap.
 
Bro. Homesick,...The lawsuit filed by Union employees of Sysco Canada,.....and the consequent upholding of the arbitrator's decision by a Canadian Superior Court,...I would imaging, would be the reference case in any other lawsuit. Not exactly sure how Canadian law differs from American court systems, but I think that if the same ruling was reinforced by an American Superior Court,....no company would waste the Court's time by filing a redundant lawsuit.
In effect,....that Superior court ruling would end driver-facing cameras.

Not sure if driver-facing cameras are legal in European trucking. Border crossings involve many different governments. Haven't really researched how European trucking companies comply with different sets of invasion-of-privacy and surveillance laws as they cross borders.

As we all know, trucking companies and legal groups are all for it,........SOLELY to decrease the trucking companies' liability exposure......and the consequent lower insurance payouts in the event of an accident.
What many drivers aren't aware of, is that if YOU, the driver, have a legal ruling,...based on camera evidence,..that you are "at fault"...even partially,.....your Homeowner's Liability insurance MAY be tapped .

How many drivers will face a so-called "jury of your peers" in a civil court......and have an adverse ruling .....based on jurors' feelings about trucks,...and years of viewing ambulance-chasing lawyer's commercials on Television about "Have you been hurt by Dangerous Large Trucks?"....

The fact that many companies either have removed,...or have decided not to use,...driver-facing cameras, tells me that the legality of such an intrusion of privacy has not been challenged in a United States Court of Law yet.....
Otherwise, the companies would jam them down your throat, and tell you there's nothing you can do about it......

If you go to TruckingTruth.com..........they will show you the companies who do have cameras,.....and those who don't, or have removed them.
If you look at the two lists,.....it becomes apparent,...to those of us in the trucking industry,....that the companies who NEED some sort of driver supervision,......are the ones who LACK extensive driver training...
....and are the VERY ONES who DO NOT have cameras.

Averritt, Heartland , Swift(?)(!!!), Celadon, Schneider, Werner, PAM, Knight, Maverick...........In MY Opinion,....if there was a case to be made for any sort of "driver supervision",.....it would be with THOSE companies,....the ones with 95% turnover rate in a year's time,......and the industrie's leading accident rates.......

Instead,.....companies with long-term Union, and non-Union LTL employees,....and other career established trucking jobs, with..."older" drivers.......are the ones with cameras installed.

Prima Facie evidence,....in My Opinion,......that the real reason for cameras is,....Discipline,(..based on arbitrary company rules..)..and Liability Limiting of company exposure.....
.....(...and the gradual elimination of older drivers who get....disgusted...when their 30+ years, and millions of miles.....gets critiqued by some desk-bound, pointy-headed bean-counter,......who drives maybe 16,000 miles a year in his BMW,...and couldn't tell you a glad hand from a gearshift two tries out of three.......)......

The only thing holding companies up,........is the legality.....of the cameras,...and the collection of personal images.
And,.....apparently the Canadian Courts have decided for Canadian drivers. The ruling in Canada was announced August 21, 2017, by the Quebec Superior Court.

I hope this information,.....and the obligatory heavy dose of Opinion,.....helps you in asking the ABF company officials why they seem to need personal surveillance of....."The best drivers in the world".....(companies' words...)
I don't know about charging my home owners insurance for my actions caught on driver facing cameras.

The target audience, according to ABF management at the Dallas meeting, for the cameras is the hired individuals who have less than one year experience. LOL, LOL. So why are cameras being put in every truck? ABF management claims the driver shortage is the reason they are forced to hire less experienced drivers and the need for driver facing cameras.

Here is something to keep in mind for those who oppose driver facing cameras, for a large segment of truckers the truck is their home. We cook in it, we eat in it, we sleep in it, WE CHANGE CLOTH IN IT. ABF has team trucks where the drivers do exactly that. So one of my questions is, is ABF going to exempt those trucks from driver facing cameras? If so is that favoritism? If not, what about recording of individuals changing cloth?
 
Last edited:
I had a KW the other day with the camera installed. It’s on a swivel so you can point the camera to the ceiling and the front one points at the dash. The visors also block the camera too.
 
I have not had the pleasure of driving a truck with an inward facing cameras yet. But the 2 pictures I have been sent show a half round object glued to the window. Something like the the prepass, with no way to move it without removing it from the glass. Also, the new ELD's we are getting have a camera in the ELD.
 
I have not had the pleasure of driving a truck with an inward facing cameras yet. But the 2 pictures I have been sent show a half round object glued to the window. Something like the the prepass, with no way to move it without removing it from the glass. Also, the new ELD's we are getting have a camera in the ELD.
If you look at the picture closely you can see that there is a bracket that mounts to the windshield. On the top of it is a pivot. For right now at least you can still pivot the camera. I’m sure eventually they will get taped down because who isn’t going to pivot them away from your face? I couldn’t tell you about the PDA’s camera. Haven’t worked in the city sense the got the new hand helds.
 
I’ve been watching this thread for awhile without commenting much. And I won’t comment much because you guys won’t like what I have to say. Even now, I will tone this comment down. IMO, you are screwed because it appears to me your union allowed these cameras in your contract in some form. You can try and fight it but I believe all of your efforts will be futile. It’s too late IMO. Unless some law bans them through some sort of class action lawsuit you’re all ****ed. The Teamsters neither have the will or the balls to make a stand in what they believe would be a futile effort. They should have never allowed the language to allow them in the first place and now it’s too late. When SAIA put these in we all bitched but ultimately accepted them because we had no choice. You can’t fight billion dollar companies and it appears to me that your union sold you out. Welcome to the real world. Accept the fact that you’ve been ****ed again by the union. At SAIA we were “hired at will” so you guys have a better chance to make a stand against them but it’s a small chance at the very best. IMO.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been watching this thread for awhile without commenting much. And I won’t comment much because you guys won’t like what I have to say. Even now, I will tone this comment down. IMO, you are screwed because it appears to me your union allowed these cameras in your contract in some form. You can try and fight it but I believe all of your efforts will be futile. It’s too late IMO. Unless some law bans them through some sort of class action lawsuit you’re all ****ed. The Teamsters neither have the will or the balls to make a stand in what they believe would be a futile effort. They should have never allowed the language to allow them in the first place and now it’s too late. When SAIA put these in we all bitched but ultimately accepted them because we had no choice. You can’t fight billion dollar companies and it appears to me that your union sold you out. Welcome to the real world. Accept the fact that you’ve been ****ed again by the union. At SAIA we were “hired at will” so you guys have a better chance to make a stand against them but it’s a small chance at the very best. IMO.
I think you’re a naysayer . The cameras were not addressed in the Abf contract except maybe tangentially in regard to elect Tronic or video recordings. They were addressed in the YRC contract which is also union contract and they were disallowed. So I don’t think we’re screwed or anything like that. At least it’s too early to make that call. Just my opinion . To address the other part of your comment I like to think that the union is just simple and not too smart rather than think that they are malicious and purposely screw Us! (Cue the Unicorns)
 
I think you’re a naysayer . The cameras were not addressed in the Abf contract except maybe tangentially in regard to elect Tronic or video recordings. They were addressed in the YRC contract which is also union contract and they were disallowed. So I don’t think we’re screwed or anything like that. At least it’s too early to make that call. Just my opinion . To address the other part of your comment I like to think that the union is just simple and not too smart rather than think that they are malicious and purposely screw Us! (Cue the Unicorns)
Fair enough.... just stating my opinion and of course as we all know that’s not worth much. Just an observation in which I hope I’m wrong.
 
The target audience, according to ABF management at the Dallas meeting, for the cameras is the hired individuals who have less than one year experience. LOL, LOL. So why are cameras being put in every truck? ABF management claims the driver shortage is the reason they are forced to hire less experienced drivers and the need for driver facing cameras.
So are cameras being put in every truck or not????
 
Fair enough.... just stating my opinion and of course as we all know that’s not worth much. Just an observation in which I hope I’m wrong.
Your opinion is just that. People might not like what you post, but posting your opinion on this board is what makes TB possible. You have the right to post anything you want within the rules. Just like Dave, Seabreeze, von, Joe's Bar, Sac75, Retread, Canarythine, or anybody else. Some posters are liked more than others. And the posting of our position on any subject matter regardless of who we might be is what makes us want to respond. And that makes this board worthwhile. von.
 
I’ve been watching this thread for awhile without commenting much. And I won’t comment much because you guys won’t like what I have to say. Even now, I will tone this comment down. IMO, you are screwed because it appears to me your union allowed these cameras in your contract in some form. You can try and fight it but I believe all of your efforts will be futile. It’s too late IMO. Unless some law bans them through some sort of class action lawsuit you’re all ****ed. The Teamsters neither have the will or the balls to make a stand in what they believe would be a futile effort. They should have never allowed the language to allow them in the first place and now it’s too late. When SAIA put these in we all bitched but ultimately accepted them because we had no choice. You can’t fight billion dollar companies and it appears to me that your union sold you out. Welcome to the real world. Accept the fact that you’ve been ****ed again by the union. At SAIA we were “hired at will” so you guys have a better chance to make a stand against them but it’s a small chance at the very best. IMO.
wholeheartedly agree. had this very same discussion with a buddy of mines from ABF and we both agreed that the union didn't care to fight this. not only that, we were both surprised that the majority voted for this. sad smh
 
The visors also block the camera too.

I drove a Mack over 300 miles before I realized the driver facing camera had been installed because the visor blocked it. The first two trucks that had the cameras in them were both 18s so they had the old and new cameras in them. Why not go after the trucks without cameras first???
 
Bro. Homesick,...The lawsuit filed by Union employees of Sysco Canada,.....and the consequent upholding of the arbitrator's decision by a Canadian Superior Court,...I would imaging, would be the reference case in any other lawsuit. Not exactly sure how Canadian law differs from American court systems, but I think that if the same ruling was reinforced by an American Superior Court,....no company would waste the Court's time by filing a redundant lawsuit.
In effect,....that Superior court ruling would end driver-facing cameras.

Not sure if driver-facing cameras are legal in European trucking. Border crossings involve many different governments. Haven't really researched how European trucking companies comply with different sets of invasion-of-privacy and surveillance laws as they cross borders.

As we all know, trucking companies and legal groups are all for it,........SOLELY to decrease the trucking companies' liability exposure......and the consequent lower insurance payouts in the event of an accident.
What many drivers aren't aware of, is that if YOU, the driver, have a legal ruling,...based on camera evidence,..that you are "at fault"...even partially,.....your Homeowner's Liability insurance MAY be tapped .

How many drivers will face a so-called "jury of your peers" in a civil court......and have an adverse ruling .....based on jurors' feelings about trucks,...and years of viewing ambulance-chasing lawyer's commercials on Television about "Have you been hurt by Dangerous Large Trucks?"....

The fact that many companies either have removed,...or have decided not to use,...driver-facing cameras, tells me that the legality of such an intrusion of privacy has not been challenged in a United States Court of Law yet.....
Otherwise, the companies would jam them down your throat, and tell you there's nothing you can do about it......

If you go to TruckingTruth.com..........they will show you the companies who do have cameras,.....and those who don't, or have removed them.
If you look at the two lists,.....it becomes apparent,...to those of us in the trucking industry,....that the companies who NEED some sort of driver supervision,......are the ones who LACK extensive driver training...
....and are the VERY ONES who DO NOT have cameras.

Averritt, Heartland , Swift(?)(!!!), Celadon, Schneider, Werner, PAM, Knight, Maverick...........In MY Opinion,....if there was a case to be made for any sort of "driver supervision",.....it would be with THOSE companies,....the ones with 95% turnover rate in a year's time,......and the industrie's leading accident rates.......

Instead,.....companies with long-term Union, and non-Union LTL employees,....and other career established trucking jobs, with..."older" drivers.......are the ones with cameras installed.

Prima Facie evidence,....in My Opinion,......that the real reason for cameras is,....Discipline,(..based on arbitrary company rules..)..and Liability Limiting of company exposure.....
.....(...and the gradual elimination of older drivers who get....disgusted...when their 30+ years, and millions of miles.....gets critiqued by some desk-bound, pointy-headed bean-counter,......who drives maybe 16,000 miles a year in his BMW,...and couldn't tell you a glad hand from a gearshift two tries out of three.......)......

The only thing holding companies up,........is the legality.....of the cameras,...and the collection of personal images.
And,.....apparently the Canadian Courts have decided for Canadian drivers. The ruling in Canada was announced August 21, 2017, by the Quebec Superior Court.

I hope this information,.....and the obligatory heavy dose of Opinion,.....helps you in asking the ABF company officials why they seem to need personal surveillance of....."The best drivers in the world".....(companies' words...)
Some heavy-duty research on your part, canary! Thank you! I’m a bit confused, astounded even, how the tapping of Homeowners Insurance could happen in the event of a truck-driver-at-fault-accident. How would that part play out?
 
Some heavy-duty research on your part, canary! Thank you! I’m a bit confused, astounded even, how the tapping of Homeowners Insurance could happen in the event of a truck-driver-at-fault-accident. How would that part play out?
My best guess is, that a persons homeowners insurance would not pay a dime on that. However I can see a scenario where if the company was exonerated from liability and it was placed on the driver that his personal bank account would be in jeopardy! Which is what I suspect the carriers insurance companies Are licking their chops over!
 
Some heavy-duty research on your part, canary! Thank you! I’m a bit confused, astounded even, how the tapping of Homeowners Insurance could happen in the event of a truck-driver-at-fault-accident. How would that part play out?


I think I stated in a previous thread about a low wire incident I had about 10 years ago, where there was contention between my employer, the cable company, and the electric company as to whose fault the low wire was.
The insurance company that was covering the car that got damaged decided to sue everyone involved, including me. I had an $8000 lien placed on my property.........without my knowledge, mind you.......that prevented me from refinancing my house. If I hadn't filed the loan papers, I would never have known.

Once I became aware of it,.... my TM was made aware....(by my storming in his office and threatening a lawsuit.after a grievance..)...and he contacted the legal department. We had a settlement in minutes,..and the legal department directly contacted my lender.

They knew they were in the wrong,.....but when were they going to inform me that I was inadvertently left on the lawsuit?

My point is that,....once a “third party” ......like lawyers,....are able to access a means of limiting liability.......there may be lots more “ Oops! We didn’t inform the driver ......”

I still have all the paperwork on this,....from the bank and from the company legal team.


I’ve been watching this thread for awhile without commenting much. And I won’t comment much because you guys won’t like what I have to say. Even now, I will tone this comment down. IMO, you are screwed because it appears to me your union allowed these cameras in your contract in some form. You can try and fight it but I believe all of your efforts will be futile. It’s too late IMO. Unless some law bans them through some sort of class action lawsuit you’re all ****ed. The Teamsters neither have the will or the balls to make a stand in what they believe would be a futile effort. They should have never allowed the language to allow them in the first place and now it’s too late. When SAIA put these in we all bitched but ultimately accepted them because we had no choice. You can’t fight billion dollar companies and it appears to me that your union sold you out. Welcome to the real world. Accept the fact that you’ve been ****ed again by the union. At SAIA we were “hired at will” so you guys have a better chance to make a stand against them but it’s a small chance at the very best. IMO.

We appreciate your Opinion of the matter, and realize you’re playing “devil’s advocate” to insure we’re not putting much faith in the grievance procedure.
However,......there may be a few political factors in play,....and it may behoove Teamster leadership to......oppose this infringement of privacy rights.

I still think anyone who gives their employer a letter stating they do not have your permission to.......”view”.......your personal image without your consent on a “per incident” basis.....
.......may have a pretty hefty legal leg to stand on.......regardless of how the Teamsters rule on this....

And.......if the Teamsters rule against the rank-and-file,.....and the companies’ use of driver-facing cameras is eventually ruled illegal in the courts..........I would think the outcry about “lack of representation “........and lack of “ leadership “......
........may force a regime change for the Teamsters......Don’t forget,..in the last General Election, Mr. Hoffa was losing,...until it came to the Canadian votes. He squeaked through,.....and not with a mandate.
 
Top